McDonald’s Hit With Lawsuit Claiming Customer Fan-Favorite Sandwich Has Zero Rib Meat
The McRib is back in court.
A federal judge in Chicago has allowed key claims in a proposed class-action lawsuit against McDonald’s to continue after consumers argued that the sandwich’s name, shape, and marketing could lead customers to believe they were buying a sandwich made with pork rib meat.
The October 30 ruling was not a finding that McDonald’s misled customers. Judge April Perry dismissed some claims but declined to throw out the bulk of the proposed case, allowing the remaining allegations to move forward.
McDonald’s disputes the lawsuit and says its claims are meritless.
The lawsuit is about what the McRib name suggests
Four consumers filed the lawsuit on December 23, 2025, in federal court in Chicago. The plaintiffs are Peter Le of Baldwin Park, California; Charles Lynch of Poughkeepsie, New York; Dorien Baker of Chicago; and Darrick Wilson of Washington, D.C.
Their argument centers on the impression created by the McRib.
The plaintiffs contend that the sandwich’s name, rib-shaped patty, and marketing make customers think it contains pork rib meat. They say that impression influenced their purchasing decisions and caused them to pay more than they otherwise would have.
Those are allegations made in the lawsuit, not established facts about the sandwich or the plaintiffs’ experiences.
The complaint seeks damages and an order that would stop the allegedly deceptive naming, marketing and advertising. The court has not awarded those remedies.
Why the judge let the case continue
The key question at this stage was not whether the plaintiffs had ultimately proved their allegations.
Instead, the court was deciding whether the claims could move beyond the dismissal stage.
Perry concluded that interpreting “McRib” as suggesting the presence of rib meat was not an inherently unreasonable interpretation for a consumer to make. As the judge wrote, “Plaintiffs’ proffered understanding of ‘McRib’ is not unreasonable or fanciful.”
That decision allows the surviving claims to continue.
It does not establish that McDonald’s intentionally deceived customers, nor does it determine what consumers should understand the sandwich’s name to mean. Some claims were dismissed as part of the ruling, so the decision was not a complete victory for the plaintiffs.
McDonald’s says the sandwich is made with pork
McDonald’s has pushed back against the allegations.
The company says the McRib contains seasoned boneless pork and disputes the suggestion that its name or presentation deceives reasonable consumers.
In its response, McDonald’s said, “This lawsuit distorts the facts and the claims are meritless.”
The company also previously told CBS Chicago that the McRib is made with 100% pork sourced from farmers and suppliers across the United States.
That statement is McDonald’s description of its product. It does not independently resolve the legal dispute over what consumers might reasonably understand from the McRib name and presentation.
What about the disputed ingredient claims?
The lawsuit also involves allegations concerning specific pork ingredients.
McDonald’s expressly denies using pork hearts, tripe, or stomach in the McRib. Those ingredients should not be treated as confirmed contents of the sandwich.
The important distinction is between what the plaintiffs allege and what McDonald’s says about its product.
The October 30 ruling did not verify those disputed ingredient claims. It also did not establish that the McRib contains no rib meat. The court’s decision concerned whether particular legal claims could proceed, not a laboratory or ingredient finding.
The Chicago connection
Chicago is central to the case.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court there; one of the plaintiffs lives in Chicago, and McDonald’s is based in the city.
That makes the case particularly notable locally, but there is no basis in the available information to suggest that Chicago customers are experiencing something different from McRib customers elsewhere.
There are also no verified local restaurant visits, customer reactions, current sandwich prices, or current McRib availability to add to the story.
What happens next?
The lawsuit remains a proposed class action.
The October 30 decision means the surviving claims can continue rather than ending at the dismissal stage. It does not mean a class has been certified, and the reporting reviewed does not establish that McDonald’s has been found liable.
The plaintiffs still have to prove the allegations they have made.
For now, the most significant development is the judge’s decision that the consumers’ interpretation of the McRib name was reasonable enough for key claims to proceed. McDonald’s continues to reject the allegations and says the lawsuit is meritless.
So the court has opened the door for the dispute to continue. It has not decided whether the McRib’s name, shape, or marketing actually deceived consumers, and it has not determined that the sandwich contains or does not contain the disputed ingredients.
